Confederacy not as bad?

[midcan5]

Junk about secession - don't have time to organize it but all the arguments are here.

Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content

Agrument v Lincoln's position
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?

John C. Calhoun's Speech: Slavery, a Positive Good

Secession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Secession in the United States

"By some theories, the American Revolution was a secession, rather than a revolution.[21][22] Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, most notably in the case of the Confederate States of America. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[23][24]"

List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

court ruling on session
Texas v. White

admission of state to union
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.

Ditto.

A whole lot has been written about the question you raise, but js hit the core summary. After that, no matter how much one studies and historians re-write history, the individual ends up judging for himself.

So here is my judgement. It has never been clear to me that, at the center of it all, either side was existentially right or wrong. The war was fought to keep the union a union. Lincoln made slavery a rallying cry. Lastly, I do not believe the war was necessary. It was nearly as avoidable as WWI.

 

[wihosa]

The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.

Ditto.

A whole lot has been written about the question you raise, but js hit the core summary. After that, no matter how much one studies and historians re-write history, the individual ends up judging for himself.

So here is my judgement. It has never been clear to me that, at the center of it all, either side was existentially right or wrong. The war was fought to keep the union a union. Lincoln made slavery a rallying cry. Lastly, I do not believe the war was necessary. It was nearly as avoidable as WWI.

Sure, Lincoln could have allowed the South to secede. Then the world's "last best hope" would have become irrelevant in regards to the human rights that the country was created to secure.

 

[Iriemon]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

States are a more localized form of government and, in most cases, well catered to the citizens who live within the state. Those citizens are able to build the laws to suit their way of life, and such ways of life may not apply to even their neighboring states. In a country with as many differing opinions as the USA, it's impossible to come up with a set of laws that satisfy everyone. That's why the states were given the right to govern their people to begin with, but the federal laws are beginning to overshadow states' rights.

You have the same problem if you live in a state with laws you don't like. How low down do you want to get before you stop individualizing?

Do you consider yourself and American or Arkansian first?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.

Ditto.

A whole lot has been written about the question you raise, but js hit the core summary. After that, no matter how much one studies and historians re-write history, the individual ends up judging for himself.

So here is my judgement. It has never been clear to me that, at the center of it all, either side was existentially right or wrong. The war was fought to keep the union a union. Lincoln made slavery a rallying cry. Lastly, I do not believe the war was necessary. It was nearly as avoidable as WWI.

Sure, Lincoln could have allowed the South to secede. Then the world's "last best hope" would have become irrelevant in regards to the human rights that the country was created to secure.

You need to read some more history, and this may be a challenge, to understand the material.

 

[Iriemon]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

Because we were just discussing that issue, it is OT.

But it is true that the US has had differing views about the right of a group to secede depending on whether the secession is beneficial or our own states.

There are a lot of states' righters here. The ulimtate state's right is to secede from the union.

How many people here support state's rights in general, and if so does that include the right for a state or group of states to secede. Why or why not?

 

[wihosa]

Ditto.

A whole lot has been written about the question you raise, but js hit the core summary. After that, no matter how much one studies and historians re-write history, the individual ends up judging for himself.

So here is my judgement. It has never been clear to me that, at the center of it all, either side was existentially right or wrong. The war was fought to keep the union a union. Lincoln made slavery a rallying cry. Lastly, I do not believe the war was necessary. It was nearly as avoidable as WWI.

Sure, Lincoln could have allowed the South to secede. Then the world's "last best hope" would have become irrelevant in regards to the human rights that the country was created to secure.

You need to read some more history, and this may be a challenge, to understand the material.

Well tell you what professor, why don't you enlighten me with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Civil War and it's cause.

 

[JBeukema]

reading the OP and ignoring the rest because I need coffee..

The CSA exercised their right to succeed. Upon establishing their independence, they got stupid. They allowed themselves to be goaded into attacking Fort Sumter. This act of war against the union started the armed conflict. They then lost the war, despite winning most battles, due in large part to a lack of industrialization. They lost the war, were conquered, and became territory of the USA once again. They were then given their rights as states back. These rights were rein congress for a short time, then were not recognized (?!?!) when the Southern states refused to agree to the 14 amendment (the 13th and 15th might also be included, but I'm not sure). Only after they reluctantly agreed to this illegal condition were they recognized yet again, this time for good.

 

[JBeukema]

I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument. The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.

Not so, immanuel. You said in the other thread that you were a christian. Read your bible again- a slave is to know his place and be a good slave, for it is god's will. The authority of the slave master, like all authority, comes from god. Slavery is recognized ansd supported in both the torah and the 'new testament' library put together by king (was uit henry or george?) and used as the basis for modern neochristians

As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended)

No, it's not.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, although, you might have been raised, North Good--South Bad, there was a little bit of Good and Bad on both sides.

Immie[/QUOTE]

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

That's just politically correct answer given by the north. The North and the South had long been wholly separate, for all intents and purposes. They were economically, ideologically, anmd politically at odds from the begininning. Interestingly, trade continued during the way; most food eaten by CSA soldiers had come from the Union states

 

[wihosa]

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

That's just politically correct answer given by the north. The North and the South had long been wholly separate, for all intents and purposes. They were economically, ideologically, anmd politically at odds from the begininning. Interestingly, trade continued during the way; most food eaten by CSA soldiers had come from the Union states[/QUOTE]

"wholly seperate"?

What are you talking about, there were a myriad of economic, cultural, political and familial ties.

The only great division between the States was the question of slavery, which the Southern States try to camoflauge with the claim of states rights.

 

[JBeukema]

I meant ideollogically

 

[rayboyusmc]

This thread isn't about state's rights. It's about the right losing the election and not being able to deal with that. I want to take my marbles and go home because I lost.

We put up with 8 years of Bush, you can put up with 8 years of Obama.

 

[JBeukema]

If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama (Clinton)

 

[WorldAHope]

If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama (Clinton)

Doubt Hillary will be up for running in 2016. She can make a lot more money and relax as a civilian.
There will be another Democrat to follow Obama.
By that time, 2016, the GOP will have split into UltraNutcaseConservative Party and the MildlyNutcaseConservative Party, and they will not be viable political opposition to the Democrats for years to come. Those two parties, and the Libertarian and COnstitution APrties will amount to less than 20% of the electorate, combined,
after alienating the centrists and the liberals with their wild antics and irrational proclamations
and refusal to help fix Bush's messes.

 

[Newby]

States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society

States rights are in relation to the federal government and the power it has over them, it doesn't have anything to do with individual rights.

 

[Newby]

If obama serves this term... 24 years... a quarter-century .. two familes.. one white house...

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama (Bush on steriods)

That's more like it.

 

[WorldAHope]

This thread isn't about state's rights. It's about the right losing the election and not being able to deal with that. I want to take my marbles and go home because I lost.

We put up with 8 years of Bush, you can put up with 8 years of Obama.

Thank you.
Sour grapes make sour whine.
The GOP had a bad crop the last few years, and they keep sipping at that foul tasting vintages, making their self pity and bitterness grow, "ungrateful voters.....wazznt our fault....s'all libbawals fault....gdammit..." and they have become addicted to their own complaining.
They haven't figured out that America won't vote for slobbering whiners and complainers who
can't get their act together long enough to pitch in and help their nation improve.
They'd rather stay at the bar sucking down their sour grapes juice all day long,
Sorry ass addicted Whinos who can't see past that bottle in their hands.

They need rehab, bad.

 

[JBeukema]

States have no rights, only powers and authorities. Only the People have rights

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Sure, Lincoln could have allowed the South to secede. Then the world's "last best hope" would have become irrelevant in regards to the human rights that the country was created to secure.

You need to read some more history, and this may be a challenge, to understand the material.

Well tell you what professor, why don't you enlighten me with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Civil War and it's cause.

Already did.

 

[JBeukema]

a lot of bickering and petty squabbling on this forum x.o